Pages

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

#56: The Timeless Question: What is an RPG?

Most of
you out there know that I love to talk about video games. I derive
pleasure from discussing what makes certain games work, where they go
wrong, whether or not their stories make sense, and so on. Out of all
of the questions related to video games that one could asked, there
exists two that I dread seeing. These two are “What is a game?”
and “What is an Role Playing Game (RPG)?”. This week, I will be
discussing the latter because the topic came up on Twitter the other
day and the realization dawned on me that I would be unable to answer
that question in a series of 140-character posts. The fact is that
there are so many games under the umbrella term of RPG that a
definition that is broad enough to include all of them, yet narrow
enough to exclude other types of game. With that in mind, coming up
with my own definition and then working it around all the kinds of
games in the genre would be impossible. Instead, I think it would be
best to analyze all the games, from Mass Effect, to Fallout, to Final
Fantasy, to Kingdom Hearts, that people mostly agree fit under the
term and create a definition of “RPG” based on what all of them
have in common.

The
first of these characteristics that I notice in all RPGs is an
overall sense of progression. By that, I mean that as the game goes
on, there is generally a sense that the protagonist is growing and
getting better at certain feats. Most of these games accomplish this
through an experience/leveling system. As players accomplish
objectives and dispatch enemies, they gain experience. After enough
experience, they level up and gain stats and/or skill points used to
purchase abilities. This model is one of the most common, appearing
in Final Fantasy, Persona, The Elder Scrolls, and many similar games.
Other franchises like Fallout add perks to this to further a sense of
growth. While this is the most common method of instilling a sense of
progression, it is by no means the only way to go about it. Both Deus
Ex and its modern sequel, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, employed
different systems. The original Deus Ex gave players Ability Points
directly, after completing objectives or finding certain locations,
which they could spend on skills from different types of weaponry to
more passive skills such as First Aid, Lockpicking, or Swimming
(which I would not recommend). Deus Ex: Human Revolution had
experience, but instead of ability points which increased certain
skills, they allowed protagonist Adam Jensen to unlock the cybernetic
augmentations he is equipped with. Regardless of what systems are in
place to encourage it, an RPG always has some way to make the player
feel like his/her character is growing in either skill or power.

Another
very common characteristic in RPGs is that designers tend to place a
very large focus on the world and its inhabitants when making them.
If players take the time to talk to people and explore in an RPG,
they can expect to learn about economies, cultures, society,
geography, political struggles, and more regarding the world or
region that it takes place in. Games like The Elder Scrolls and
Fallout (both older and newer titles) can boast a very rich and
detailed world just waiting to be explored. That is one of the
biggest draws of those games, and a topic I have written
about before. Also, Bioware games like Mass Effect, Baldur's Gate, or
Knights of the Old Republic serve as good examples. Like it or hate
it, a major part of what makes the Mass Effect franchise so popular
is that Bioware took the time to envision and develop a very vivid
lore that most of the fans fell in love with. Learning about all of
the various races, their cultures, and beliefs is half the fun of the
game to some players. This is also true for the Japanese side of the
RPG moniker. While games like Final Fantasy and Persona do not
necessarily need to have very detailed background information due to
how linear those games tend to be, players of them are often treated
to pretty interesting worlds like the land of Spira in Final Fantasy
X or the rural town of Inaba in Persona 4. The people and places all
have there own story. The church of Yevon and the story of its
creation and internal corruption are as fascinating as the discovery
of a world inside the TV and all of its mysteries. When it comes down
to it, all RPGs have deep, interesting worlds to learn about and/or
explore.

The last
element that I have noticed in all Role Playing Games to some extent
is a feeling that the player has some element of choice in how the
player character/party develops. Admittedly, this one is going to be
a bit of a hard sell, so hear me out. In most western-style RPGs,
this characteristic is pretty obvious. Usually, the player gets to
choose what skills the protagonist has and/or how they develop. This
is usually tied into the development system, similarly to the sense
of progression. Players can often be asked at the start what class
they wish to play as, a tactic employed in Alpha Protocol and other
games. This can either be used separately or in combination with a
system that gives players Ability Points to spend on skills as they
rank up. Another well known system in Western RPGs is Skyrim's system
where skills develop as they are used. From the other side of the
coin, in JRPGs, this characteristic may be less noticeable, but I
feel that it is still present. Games like Final Fantasy usually have
characters evolve on static and fairly predictable paths, at level X
they acquire ability Y. However, all of these games have some form of
customization. The very first Final Fantasy allowed players to choose
their character classes at the start of the game. The second had
abilities level up upon using them. The third and fifth had job class
systems that allowed players to experiment with different classes and
truly customize their characters to their own playstyle. And most
others allowed players to pick their party from a very large group.
All of these games have some element that allows players to pick
their own way to play through the game. The other notable JRPG,
Persona, is also extremely well known for this thanks to its system
where the player character and hold and use different personae while
the rest of the party can be chosen from a diverse cast of character,
although earlier games in the franchise allowed all party members to
switch personae. Every RPG allows for players to think for themselves
and play through them in their own way.

To me,
all of these elements are what separate an RPG from other genres of
video games. A strong sense of progression and customization along
with a detailed world are ultimately what binds all of the games
under this heading together. While this is the definition that I have
reached, I will not claim that this definition is absolute by any
means. Feel free to dispute and criticize my opinion on this subject
all you like. I would welcome the conversation gladly. Whatever your
own opinion is, I encourage you to discuss and share it with others.

8 comments:

SougoXIII
said...

Ahh JRPGs, a subject close my heart. I would agree with all of your point and add that the clear distinction between WRPGs and JRPGs is their emphasis on how your choice as a player, affect the narrative. It is this distinction that make many people dismiss JRPGs as a 'real' RPG genre at all - though when they actually think about it, how many games like Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex: HR actually exist? The rest are just playing on the illusion of choice with a linear narrative.

If you think about it though, JRPGs do give you the abilities to respond to the plot. An example of this is the Live Trigger mechanic in FFXIII-2 and in FFVII onwards, we do often get some sort of dialogue choice for our character. The difference between this and WRPGs is that it doesn't try to sell me the notion that what I do will have any effect on the story at all and I appreciate it for that (Except for the ending 'choice' of FFXIII-2 but we can all agree that FFXIII-2 was not written by a very competent person.)

The real tragedy of FFXIII-2 is that they can make a legitimately good sequel. They just need to do the following:

1) Do not retcon the ending - Seriously, I do not even know Etro exist in FFXIII. You can make the excuse of how Lightning and Co come back from being crystalised by saying that since the Fal'Cie who branded them have died, they are now free from its cursed. I would have buy it because it make freaking sense.

2) Focusing on rebuilding a society on Pulse. It is a major theme of FFXIII - building your own destiny. Toriyama (the writer) made a cough out by saying 'Hey guys, don't worry we can still savage resources from Cocoon despite the whole urm... city? planet? being turned into a giant crystal.

3) No need to create new conflict - I can understand the reason why the use time traveling as a plot device in order to reuse assets as much as possible while making it fell 'fresh' but it does terrible thing to the narrative given how Toriyama have no freaking clue on how to handle a time travel story. There's already a conflict ripping within the ending FFXIII: 'Are you going to tell me that a majority of Cocoon citizens are going to believe Lightning and Co after having their home and comfortable way of life destroy? Hell no. There will be dissent. There will be attack on the 'heroes.' There will be those who refuse to accept the situation and turn their blind faith to the Fal'Cie again. Given that there's still some Pulse Fal'Cie around, we have a recepes for a plot right there. (To be fair, FFXIII-2 does have this plot point somewhere, but it casually swept it under the rug for more Liam O'brien and 'Warrior Goddess.'

3) Focus more on the characters - This is hilarious because FFXIII was all suppose to be about the characters but after 40 hours, they're not even that developed at! (Lightning, Snow, Fang, I'm looking at you.) I would focus on the relationship between Lightning and Serah cause since all we know from FFXIII is that 'They care about each other, because urm... they're sister I guess.' There's no way in hell Lightning and Serah have a normal sister relationship given how Lightning's barely home due - you can even say that Lightning's been avoiding Serah as a coping mechanism similar to how Dojima's treating Nanako in P4 and Serah blames herself as she believes that Lightning essentially sacrifice her 'normal' life just for her.

The most disappointing character in FFXIII-2 is Serah because I can't for the life of me remember any new development from her in FFXIII-2 that I don't already know from her 10 mins appearance in FFXIII.

You can see why this is so frustrating for me. I was legitimately hyped when FFXIII-2 was announced because I see it as another go at the badly flesh out world of FFXIII. I learned my lesson for LR:FFXIII though. Though I will still get it day 1 because well... you name me another decent funding Jrpgs that going to be out for consoles.

Yeah. XIII-2 held a lot of promise, but it just failed to deliver. That said, since I like playing these games, odds are I'll get LR: FFXIII.

1.) Totally in agreement here. The whole Etro thing feels tacked on almost. This is odd because the whole point of the original Fabula Nova Crystalis "trilogy" was that they all had the same background lore (ie. L'Cie, Fal'Cie, Etro, Yuel, etc.) but were set in different worlds. Make of that what you will.

2.) I'd find this extremely interesting. This really should have been the whole point of XIII because...

3.)...FUCK TIME TRAVEL. A time travel plot almost instantly introduces elements that don't make sense. This is especially true for XIII-2. I couldn't stand Villain Sue Caius and the fact that every... fucking... problem was the result of a paradox. Grrr.

3.1) This really is the biggest problem. Besides maybe Snow and Hope, none of the characters from the old game got a lot of development. Serah got some, given that she kills herself saving the world, but that's not much. It's just dumb... like Aldowyn!

Those things feel like a very loose description of the genre but there's no way to break it down further, is there? As a genre, there's nothing that defines what the gameplay actually is. Diablo, GTA, and Skyrim are all very different beasts, after all. Would it be a better system if we broke RPG down into a bunch of sub-genres instead of just having a category for 'RPG'?

Perhaps. Aside from general elements, the RPG genre doesn't have many elements the bind the whole genre together. It probably would be better to just break it down into subcategories just to make it more manageable.

RPG is such a broad term that it technically shouldn't even be considered a genre. I believe that progression in character ability is usually par for the course but unless it is complimented by progression in story it typically isn't recognized as a proper RPG. For the past few years we have seen more and more games contain "RPG Elements" that allow players to have some influence over there character but to me RPG will always mean the fantastic epics with well written characters in interesting and dynamic worlds.